TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. McAdoo

State of Missouri ex inf. Attorney General v. Foster J. McAdoo

State v. McAdoo, 36 Mo. 452 (1865)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1865
Judges
Holmes, Lovelace, Wagner
Citations
36 Mo. 452
Headnotes
Constitution — Election—Office.—By the Constitution, Art. II., § 8, no vote can be counted for, nor any certificate of election granted to, any candidate who has not taken and filed the oath of loyalty within fifteen days next preceding the election. A certificate of election granted to one who has not thus taken and filed the oath is null and void.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wagner

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an infoi’mation, in the nature of a quo warranto, filed by the Attorney General against Foster J. McAdoo, re *453 quiring liim to show by what authority he exercises the functions and duties of the office of sheriff of Laclede county.

No answer has been filed in this court by MeAdoo to the writ, which has been duly served and returned.

It appears from the record, that at an election held in Laclede county on the 5th day of September last, for sheriff of said county, the defendant and several other persons were candidates for the said office of sheriff, and that he received the highest number of votes cast, but had failed to take, file and subscribe the oath required of candidates by the Constitution of this State, within fifteen days next preceding the election.

By sec. 8 of Art. II. of the Constitution, no vote in any election by the people shall be cast up, nor shall any certificate of election be granted to any person who shall not within fifteen days next preceding such election have taken, subscribed and filed said oath.

MeAdoo, having omitted to comply with the requirements of the Constitution, was ineligible; and the casting up the votes, and issuing the certificate to him, were acts unauthorized by law, and null and void. We are of opinion, therefore, that, in exercising the rights and privileges, and receiving the emoluments of said office, he has been guilty of usurpation, and we accordingly adjudge that he be ousted therefrom.

Having no evidence that he acted from any other than mistaken views, we forbear imposing any fine on him, and only order that he pay the costs.

Judge Holmes concurs; Judge Lovelace absent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1887: 11898: 11905: 11913: 118872026peak 1887 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list